What Happened To Wife # 1 for Mr. Stepford Roberts?

Looks like Stepford wife is a # 2 not a # 1 wife.

Isn't he 50 years old?

or maybe he just married late in life. Look at the John Edwards and wife--they have two small children--and they've been married for years.

who died in a car accident.

I don't care if I get flamed or not, but this "marriage" with the pretty adopted children is a sham. I guess Roberts got the whisper from Bush that he would be a Supreme court pick years ago. Like when Bush orginally was awarded the White House. Little Jack is 5...its all soooooooo cute.

for his career. Those kids and his wife might be his beards????

Sorry about the accident, sincerely sorry.

Why isn't that a part of his bio?

It would help to fill in the spaces for us.

You said:


I don't care if I get flamed or not, but this "marriage" with the pretty adopted children is a sham. I guess Roberts got the whisper from Bush that he would be a Supreme court pick years ago. Like when Bush orginally was awarded the White House. Little Jack is 5...its all soooooooo cute.

I say:

I am stunned that anyone, right or left, would say such a thing about anyone else's marriage.

How in the Hell would you or anybody else know what someone else's marriage is like?

This post is not based in any kind of fact and is the kind of baseless fantasy of which we rightly condemn the other side.

I know a lot of people who are quite conventional looking who have solid, loving families. To judge a family from a ten-minute appearance on TV in the presence of the President and the press is, in my opinion, the height of arrogance.

This kind of post is beneath DU.

I don't think I much like John Roberts, and I sure don't like his wife's anti-abortion hobby, but that sure doesn't make me or anybody else qualified to judge their marriage.

I was astonished that 4 and 5 year old kids were so critized for the way they were dressed ect. Mrs.Roberts was accused of trying to look like Jackie Kennedy ect. Made me feel a bit ill. I thought maybe I was on the Freeper site.I have noticed lately that there are more postings of this tone. I do not care for Roberts and am in no way defending him.But, you are right--this is demeaning to DU. It is not easy to corral a 4 year old and so what if he was dancing? It would have been more distracting if she had tried to catch him. I have also read that they were married when in their 40's and evidently it was a first marriage for both of them.

... the two kids looked like models for a Nordic travel poster. Mom, in her pink dress, pearls and frozen expression, looks more like a nanny than wife. I guess Mr. Roberts, being the ambitious type, was successful in creating the photogenic "perfect" little family, rather like choosing the right suit and the "right" neighborhood.

There's something rather creepy about the lot if you ask me.

Buster Browns....

A very dangerous and corrupt period.

white men with enough money to afford an education, for instance. As an era, it was pretty dangerous and corrupt from the perspective of, say, a black person. It wasn't so hot for a woman who wanted to excel professionally either.

how scary is that?

Usually when they want to brag about how perfect they are they will say...

Dagwood and Blondie met at Harvard. She was 40 and he was 42. They were married at St. Johns Catholic Church bla bla bla


I would like to see dates and bridesmaids names and marriage certificates.

At first I was just going along.

Now, as long as they are so willing to jump into the lives of every woman, I want to know EVERYTHING about them.

At least nothing I could find on LN or Marquis and believe me, I looked. I was hoping he had left behind a wife and four or five kids, while she was suffering from cancer, a la the Newtster.

Not busting your balls, I just read your line and then spaced out on it for a minute going, "No wife #1? No wife #1? No wife #1? No wife #1?" before the tinfoil hat kicked in and set me right.

It was a question for me because they are so willing to take away Roe v. Wade I want some answers in their life.

They are more than willing to change the course of woman for forever more.

when I saw his kids. Why would a good christian man wait so long to have children? Don't good christians get married in order to procreate? What's the hold-up there?

Unless this is a second marriage.

Link above from Wikipedia cleared it up.

I don't mean to be.

Your my friends and all .. but I'm a proud adoptive mother.

And, there's no evidence that we couldn't have had children naturally.

We just fell in love with my baby when we saw her; I was a social worker and committed to seeing that every child ended up in a loving home.

We were childless by choice unitl pre-40ish.

That was until we were blessed by Beloved Daughter.

And, yes, I am her REAL mother; I am zealously dedicated to her well-being, and have been since she was placed in my arms.

was she over-tired from the media circus or is this a window-dressing marriage?

:eyes:

on the waiting list to get two perfect little blonde children, and a boy and a girl at that. I'm sure the kids are great but there's a stench to the extreme normalcy of this family -- they look like something out of a 1950s sitcom.

http://www.cafepress.com/scarebaby/700794

"I find your extreme normalcy disturbing."

That might have worked the year that American Beauty was popular. Not so sure now.

just that many times the veneer of perfection is a shallow facade for many many things. Sometimes there are secrets. Not always.

It used to be when we had some normality.

n/t

Just wondering where you're coming from.

* Segregation, Jim Crow, Bull Connor, four dead girls in Birmingham, Emmett Till.

* Housing rules that stated you couldn't sell your home to blacks, or Catholics, or Jews.

* Travesties like spousal abuse and familial child rape were "family matters" not to be discussed or even censured. Many women who didn't work outside the home were trapped by their situations and couldn't escape their abusers. After the feminist movement, spousal murders were cut in half.

* The mentally ill shut away in institutions. And this was a day when having sex as a teenager could get you labeled "deviant" and institutionalized.

* African-Americans bleeding to death before they reached the "colored hospital"

* Single women who gave birth under anesthesia only to be told upon waking that their child was stillborn, only to find out later that the child had been taken from her and put up for adoption without her knowledge and consent.

* Forced sterilizations.

* Feeding radioactive material to mentally retarded children in the name of science.

* The fear of nuclear annihilation.

For more on the reality of the 50s, I'd recommend "The Way We Never Were" by sociologist Stephanie Coontz.

RL

:evilgrin:

.

"What's wrong with the 50's"

:eyes:

RL

You're either jumping to conclusions or just looking to slam me.

How do you feel about the 50's?

RL

:yawn:

RL

of your concept of the 50's?

the 50's that is the point dear.

You think the 50's were wholesome because you slept with unlocked doors but while you slept Ed Gein danced in circles draped in human skin, wearing underwear containing excised female genitalia.

Some things were better, unless of course you were black or a female with a healthy intellect and the desire to express that intellect in a career.

you describe today, i.e, Dahlmer.

However, I do agree that the racial climate was awful.

What was fictional was the TV characters and that's what that book is based on. The reality was that we were safe enough to sleep with our doors unlocked. That's a far cry from where we are today.

You never read that book.

someone else's experience or opinion.

IMO, what you've outlined is grossly exaggerated - racial issues aside, that is.

I think the author is grabbing at straws to prove her point.

Now, if you want to talk about what was good about the 50's....

Look it up. read about it. I did, and that's why I know about it. Except for some of the circumstances (such as the adoption story) that are the tales of family members, mentors, etc.

And what's wrong about mentioning the REALITY of other people even if I didn't live through it.

Don't believe everything you read - there's always something to back up what you WANT to believe.

May not be representative, nor does it lessen or negate others' experiences.

laureloak is gone.

:evilgrin:

Do you think?

http://www.marquiswhoswho.com/

Down at the bottom of the page.

Another problem is the weak little Republican buggers like to swim down stream too.

to adopt white boys. You have to pay alot of money for that to happen. What is surprising is that he is from a very affluent family.sarcasm

at end of announcement- Bush and Roberts turned and began their walk away from the podium, and then OOPS!...they forgot about Mrs Roberts, whom they had left standing alone off to the far side, and so they both turned and motioned her to get with them.

Dutifully, she hurried over to them and followed the two men out of sight.

That said everything about both these men.

seriously, I think she's just furniture to his career. Maybe they adopted because he doesn't even sleep with her.

Odd behavior for a man they have touted as one of the greatest minds of our time. You'd think he'd be able to remember his wife was with him, and not walk off leaving her standing there like someone waiting for a bus. I guess he expected her to catch a ride home!

Welcome to D.U., Dancer. :hi: :hi: :hi:

and have never given birth in their own right that are anti abortion....is it because they were unable to have their own so they want everyone else in this country to pay for their fertility failure??
or do they just want more babies in the basket to choose from for their adoptions?
why would a woman who could not have a child be on a board or volunteer group for feminists for life..or some such group( i am sure i got the group name wrong..)
but is it because she had a tough time (buying?) ... ( cough , choke) adopting a white child??

so every person who has ever made a mistake or been raped , or been the victim of incest , or god knows what.. has to pay for her fertility failures?

i would like to know when they got married and if she waited till an older age to decide to be a mother..and now is it because of her lifes delays ..does she want to make others suffer for her lifes choices??

we all have choices in life..except those who are victims...so should all victims be punished because of this womans life choices??

i have a friend who adopted at age 50 ..who realized very late she wanted to be a mother..it was her lifes choice..she decided early to own and run her own business and she did not want to sacrifice her life for motherhood..it was her choice..but at age 50 she realized she had a huge hole in her life..but she had a tough time adopting because in her words..there just weren't many white babies available...so like all else she bought with her millions..she paid big bucks to get her white baby..

and now she belongs to all these right to life groups..because ..dang it ..it was so hard to get a white baby!

like i said we all have life choices...

except victims..of rape, incest, abuse , poverty ..

so should all victims be the baby makers for these women unable to concieve?? or waited to long to try?

I, too, wonder sometimes if the anti-choice movement is partially fueled by those who would like to see an increase in the "supply" of white babies. As if children were a friggin' crop that could be harvested off of someone else's private misery. :grr:

on edit: maybe those who have given birth are more likely to be pro-choice because they know, first-hand, just how much a pregnancy can take out of you.

"If it ain't White it ain't RIGHT "

They wanted to be "perfect" as they climbed up the ladder of success.

and not all that many years ago, young women and girls were so shamed into "maternity homes", that they gave up those little "high school/office place "love babies"..They were predominently white, because those homes were for white girls..

It was an industry, and provided babies for a lot of prominent, but barren couples.

There are many 50-70 yr old women who are hoping to find those love babies before they die..

Those babies were given up because the girls were brainwashed and shamed into forfeiting those kids.. there were few, if any services available to them, so they had no choice. The ones who bucked the system and kept their babies were sometimes shunned by their families and community

End abortion rights, and those "homes" come back...money and white babies for all:(

who went into one of those homes in "shame" forced by her family to go there..in san fran.....and after being forced to give up her baby committed suicide!

my aunt lived with the shame her entire life..( and became a drunk)but it wasn't the shame of the baby she lived with..it was the shame of what she did to her daughter she lost so young!

from, get this, LATIN AMERICA.

Yeah, right.

Didn't a lot of those white Aryan types flee to South and Latin America at the end of WWII?

And they're still very active, and live in a huge protected area. I saw a special one (very late) night on television.

Pretty spooky stuff. Nazis alive and well, and propagating!

:kick::kick::kick:

If you go to many South American countries you will find lots of blond, blue-eyed people, especially Brazil. So yes, it is entirely for the children to have come from Latin America.

There are thousands of kids in the US who are available for adoption who are considered "hard to place". Many have special needs (emotional or physical), some are minority, and some are just old enough to be past the "cute" stage.

or if they were born to 2 different mothers.
If they're biological siblings, how was their adoptions accomplished?
Is he the biological father? Inquiring minds...

babies to adopt.........

important thing is white and BABY

doesn't it?

Not only that, all the pro life woman I know have children, except one who spent many thousands of dollars and suffered great mental and physical agonies trying to have a child. She was pregnant three times but could never carry the child for long. She and her husband did not choose to adopt.

We don't know what the Robertses' true situation is. They may have suffered from infertility for years, undergone IVF, the whole nine yards, and still ended up without any children, as my friend did. We don't know. All we know is that they adopted two children when they themselves were in their mid-forties.

And, yes, white people with money have an easier chance of adopting a white baby. Rosie O'Donnell, for example. Do you castigate her for buying kids? If not, why not?

i do not know anyone who is pro abortion but there are times when abortion is a nessesary choice for some women ..due to circumstances which we have no business knowing!

and i know of no one who is anti life..but again there are circumstances beyond our right to know for other women..who need or choose the option of giving birth or not..but over and over again i see the ones who can not bare children on the front lines of pro life movements...
that does not mean all pro life women can not bare children...these titles are really sickening and false to me..

i am both pro life and pro choice...but more important i am pro women having the say over their own bodies! and their own circumstances..and i do not believe that is the governments business!
hell the government started a war on lies..killing children every day in iraq..is that pro choice? so do i want them ( government ) having a decision making say in women having children?? or what her circumstances are??

and no i do not think that a weatlhy woman should have a greater chance at adopting a baby..i have seen many rich women 'buy " there babies while poorer women have no chance at adoption..

ones weatlh does not make one woman or family better parents..many poor women have raised families of heros and brilliant humans who opened the world to great achievements.

but i do not believe the government has a say in a womans womb..period.
(oxymoron there!)

for hours as part of Operation Rescue while we begged the mothers to take the babies inside out of the heat or at least give them some water.

Yeah members of the pro life movement have babies for the show. It's a shame you don't take better care of them.

No way would I have had my young son out there in the heat and exposed to potential violence.

I don't think that 'you' is appropriate, addressed to Dem Bones.

My hubs stayed home with our baby daughters for 5 years. I had NO IDEA (oh, I thought I did, sure--being such an intelligent, empathetic person, yada yada--)what life was REALLY like for parents w/ young kids in daycare UNTIL HUBS WENT BACK TO WORK AND we were actually IN that position. oh. my. god. What a lesson in "STFU until you've been there"!

Women who never have /never will deal with unplanned pregnancy have NO FREAKING business telling their sisters what to do. NONE. Just like my being a know-it-all about childcare when I didn't use it. PERIOD.




oooh i feel better now.

but hold on.

I adopted - and I am NO 'pro-lifer.'

I'm as pro-choice as they come.

And a proud retired social worker too.

And I'm back working in dependency court as a law clerk (this 47-year-old ma and recent law grad).

So, I'd say I earned my chops as a feminist and advocate for poor women.

college in 1976.

So what. She graduated in 1976. They could've met later in life after he had another wife. I'm not really one for rumors or anything like that, but it is interesting on why they waited till their age to have children that young. :shrug:

28, waited two years to get pregnant. Then my husband and I found out we had infertility problems and it took 5 years to get pregnant. It happens. BTW..it was the first marriage for both of us.

Something about him doesn't ring true.
Can't put my finger on it but something is missing.

for one thing... and I always get creeped out by people who never seem to blink when they're talking to you. IMHO, it's almost as bad a sign as the non-stop blinking, which denotes lying.

I agree with you -- there is something about him that creeps me out.

Sheesh...as someone that was the product of a father, 42, and a mother 37, I can tell you that there could be many reasons. Many personal reasons that are none of anybody's business.

I didn't realize it was now a DU thing to start knocking parents who have kids in their late 30s/early 40s.

No one here cares if people have children in their 40s.

Some of us are wondering if there's a dirty-little-secret we can exploit, that's all.

It wouldn't be any of our business, except that the SC might be considering legislating OUR personal lives.

I married at 28.

There are many reasons to delay starting a family. Career and enjoying one's youth are two which come to mind. ;)

I admit, the way the wife and kids are dressed does strongly calls to mind that they're only window-dressing for a successful politician, but is this such a rarity in DC?

We were lucky. We put off starting a family until we felt ready (there is nothing in the world which really prepares one for the reality of raising children! ;) ) and didn't have any trouble.

I have friends who weren't so lucky.

Rove told him he'd stand a better chance of winning over Senators if he had some kids.

It just don't look natural. 50-y-o man with kindergartners...

What if it *was* wife no #2? Who cares?

"Family Values" and all that shit. Liberals are supposedly amoral, yet Newt Gingrich is on wife #5 or 7, who can keep track?

That's why.

..because in addition to a child at Princeton he has a 6 and 4 year old.

Hey, so I'm prejudiced agains ReTHUGlican Federalists. So shoot me.

Boy, you think people would at the MOST say "BiggJawn, if you don't like the idea of 50-year-olds having kids, then don't HAVE any" and leave it at that.

For the Edwards' first son, who died in 1996 (don't buy your kid an SUV)! Sad, and perhaps a little creepy, but understandable. Waiting as long as the Roberts did to have kids (by whatever means), considering that they will be approaching death just as their kids are graduating college, is just plain wierd, and actually unnatural. It says a lot about their priorities that they didn't want to make the sacrifices most people make in order to have kids when they are still biologically able to do so. Just think, if thier kids have kids, and they're still alive, they can drool along with their grandchildren.

Stupid me.

So, all DUers that don't have children have their priorities screwed up.

I'm learning a lot about myself today. And, even more about some of my fellow DUers.

Just that you read something into my remarks that was not there. I fail to see how anything I wrote implies that all DUers, or anyone else, who elects not to have children have screwed up priorities.

As far as the replacement comment goes, it was insensitive. Yet it is how some people respond to the tragedy of losing a child, as the Edwardses have pretty much gone on record as saying/doing. No moral judgment was meant.

I'm terribly sorry. I am a newbie here. I really didn't realize, given the tenor of much of what I've read here, that DUers were so sensitive.

Having said that, I do urge you to consider having children. My wife and I did, and our little fellow turns six months old next week. I have found that all that crap that my married friends with children used to spew about how wonderful being a parent is to be not only true, but actually an understatement.

Plus, if we don't have kids, you know the Republicans will. I shudder to think of a generation that has freepers for parents.

"It says a lot about their priorities that they didn't want to make the sacrifices most people make in order to have kids when they are still biologically able to do so"

What fundie "start a family young" bullshit is that? Isn't part of choice choosing when to have children?

Personally I could care less when people choose to have children.

This nomination has brought out the absolute worst in people, the difference between DUers and Freepers in terms of vicious pettiness is getting smaller by the day.

is it somehow noble to have kids you're neither emotionally nor financially ready to bring up? Leaving aside the possibility that even if the Roberts had met and married in their early 20's instead of their early 40's, they still might not have been fertile together; that happens.

And you're right, of course, infertility does happen. Fertility, however, is the norm. Each and every one of us has come from a line of people who have successfully bred for millions of years. Perhaps that is why the Roberts' had fertility problems. Assuming he's a strict creationist, his lineage goes back only 4,000 years, which gives a lot fewer generations for infertility to be selected out.

...and also a bit of truth. There is a whole class of people who pursue high-powered careers, put off having children, and then get shocked when biology catches up with them. Yet many of these people at the same time praise the wisdom of God's design. I fail to see how my pointing this out makes me a fundamentalist.

Though you may care less when people have children, these things do matter when it comes to issues such as abortion and reproductive freedom more generally. For example, judge Roberts probably believes that a teenage girl facing a crisis pregancy should be forced to have the child, no matter what sacrifices that may entail. And yet he himself, though he apparently wanted to have a family, put it off in order to pursue other goals. My comment was meant to point out that these two positions may not be logically consistent.

As far as choosing when to have children, yes, it's a matter of individual choice, of individual persons and couples. And yet, though choice dictates we should be able to have children whenever we like, nature dictates that it is not so. Lots of women, especially, are put into a bind by the conflict between nature and their careers. We've set up a nasty situation for them: no kids before age 18, because you're in high school, no kids from 18-22, because you're in college, no kids from 22-29, because you're in graduate school. No kids after 30, because it would require too much time away from your career. So, especially for professional women, they get a year or two to do all their childbearing, if they are able. Working class women have it just as bad, except they are supposed to have kids on smaller incomes with husbands who are less likely to be supportive, or there at all. Although we're a supposedly family-friendly society, we're demonstrably less so than, say, many states in Europe.

People are very apt to impose their moral judgements on others, especially with regard to childbearing/rearing. If I had seemed to give offense, I deeply apologize. Off-topic, I know, the subject for another thread, maybe. I assure you, neither viciousness nor pettiness was intended, I had meant only to point out some logical inconsistencies between the position on abortion rights Judge Roberts took while in the Justice Department and the way he has led his own life.

:kick:

children when they are in their 40's. Jeez, I must have missed that in our party's platform last time around. :eyes:

You ought to know better.
That's *MY* personal opinion. you don't like it, fine, say so, just don't try that "OHHHHHH! So much for being the 'Big Tent' Party" crap.

I can tell that by the alienating tone of your posts.

Since the way I see it, the "Big Tent" theory is just a code-word for "get in step".

If it was TRULY a "Big Tent", then there'd be room for even "alienating" curmudgeons like me, but there we go, step out of line with what's considered "Big Tent-Think" and you're criticised.

...say insulting things that apply to fellow inhabitants of that tent, and you will be criticised for it. I'm not really talking politics at all. You know, life ain't all about politics.

OMG! (just kidding!)
Yeah, you're right, it's not all about politics. I keep forgetting that, and I understand you now, and I apologise for any insults.

You KNOW when I'm being truly insulting, the post gets vapourized....

I can't bring up the "Smilie table" for some reason?
<scratches head>

Here's a few, I'll share with you. :) :) :)

and their life choices, but things aren't always that black and white when it comes to having kids. Many women are waiting later to have children, and often, accompanying that are infertility problems which increase that delay.

this stuff belongs on the freeper sites. We should be above this crap. Why don't we stick to the issues, and quit throwing out innuendos about personal matters we know nothing about.

I so agree with you.

yeeck!

http://www.unionleader.com/politics2.html
Caption under the picture says kids adopted from Latin America

Now where did they find those blond kids in Latin America? At a German community in Argentina?

outside the community. That leaves the ex-Nazi crowd.

This guy roberts, with what we know now, WILL get confirmed. But we WILL go through the hearings. The only thing that can knock him off the rails now is a personal scandal, to emerge as the slow-moving American Kabuki of a modern SOCUTS nominiation procedure works itself out.

As stated in posts above, it is MAD hard to be able to adopt a blonde-haired white kid in the good ol' U.S.A. It is even harder, given the odds, in Latin America, with a much higher percentage of "non-white" (mestizo, indian, etc.) in the general population, plus, the usual Latin American appreciation, amongst the elite of almost every country, for "whiteness" -- looking like you could be straight from Spain, straight from the Conquistadors.

How did he get these kids!?!?!

If anything knocks him off the ultimate bench, this is it!!

He must have paid a pretty penny.

Didn't he give $80,000 for Bush to be selected?

Sure he could have spent big time, on the underground baby mill for the two little cuties.

They are adorable!

This article doesn't say anything about a first marriage, though.

(snip)

Mr. Coffin said that after the Robertses married nine years ago when they were both in their early 40's, they tried to have children. After a "heartbreaking process" of several failed adoption efforts, he said, they "got lucky" with two children, Josephine and John, now 5 and 4.

more…
http://nytimes.com/2005/07/21/politics/21nominee.html?ei=5094&en=3e6d2bbcdacc8242&hp=&ex=1122004800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

Someone mentioned that we should not try to discover the whys and wherefores of the life of John Roberts.

I disagree.

For the rest of HIS LIFE, he will be able to pass judgment on the lives of WOMEN that deserve the right to choose.

I want to know what makes him tick. How does he value women? I want to know that side of him.

It may not change the appointment process but I will know that he is not to be trusted for one minute.

Remember when the Rethugs were saying that Clarence Thomas was an angel? HA!

A few years ago I heard, for the 1st time, that his 1st wife left him for the same stuff that Anita Hill was talking about,he is now and always was slime.

Can we stop the attacks on the family....especially since we know NOTHING about the family.

Christ, a guy has two cute kids and we attack him for it. It's disgraceful.

I am stunned that so many people here hate this family for how they look.

To me, they look like an ordinary family that got all dressed up to go meet the President.

Not all of us can look like The Osbornes.

...or even a woman

:shrug:

Two days ago, you didn't know who this guy was, I assume. Now you want to ask him if he was gay or has a secret marriage in his past?

Why stop there?

Mr. Roberts, are you an alcholic?
A recovering alcholic?
Do you smoke?
Do you eat red meat?
Too much red meat?
Can you pee in this cup, please?
Do you hate black people?
Have you ever slept with a black woman?
If so, did you like it?
Ever slept with a black man?
If so, did you like it?
Ever been on crack?
Ever bought a bootleg movie?
Ever shoplifted?
Masturbated?
Do you like romantic comedies?

I mean, where does the madness end?

;)

is involved in a Corp. that promotes Outsourcing and recieved a Iraq Recontruction grant?

Seems like another example of Lynn and Dick
and Clenece and Blondie Wife.

Those two wives really reflect the politics of their husbands.

not a crime to be blonde or smart or attractive.

I agree that this discussion is way below DU.

Anyway -- you should just leave the wife and kids out of it -- PERIOD. Regardless of how they look.

That would be a really good thing to find out about!!???


:kick::kick::kick:

Don't know how much you'd trust Opus Dei's website, but it says "...we would like to dispel once and for all the rumors that Louis Freeh, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Mel Gibson are members."

Where'd you get that?

http://www.opusdei.com/art.php?w=32&p=10101

The second "myth" has the bit about Scalia/Thomas.

n/t

It's been discussed on DU a great deal. And I don't trust their web site to issue a disclaimer.

:kick::kick::kick: